Comparative effectiveness of alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs. CONCLUSIONS: SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Sotatercept and Approved Add-On Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Therapies: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

RATIONALE: There are no direct comparisons of sotatercept to add-on therapies approved for PAH. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of add-on sotatercept versus other add-on therapies using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov until April 15, 2023, for randomized trials involving PAH patients treated with add-on sotatercept or add-on other PAH therapies. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search found 18 trials (5777 patients) eligible for analysis. Sotatercept reduces clinical worsening as compared to placebo (RR 0.21 [95% CI 0.11 to 0.41]; high certainty). Sotatercept probably reduces clinical worsening more compared to add-on ERA (RR 0.28 [95% CI 0.14 to 0.55]), prostanoid (Inh) (RR 0.21 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.67]), and prostanoid (PO) (RR 0.32 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.67]) (all moderate certainty). Sotatercept probably improves 6MWD as compared to placebo (MD 36.89m [95% CI 25.26 to 48.51]). Although sotatercept probably improves 6MWD more than add-on ERA (MD 18.38m [95% CI 5.92 to 30.84]) and prostanoid (PO) (MD 25.66m [95% CI 13.71 to 37.61]), it did not exceed the MCID of 33m (both moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Sotatercept is an effective add-on therapy for PAH, likely superior to many approved add-on PAH therapies in reducing clinical worsening.

Spontaneous Breathing Trial Techniques for Extubating Adults and Children Who Are Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Considerable controversy exists regarding the best spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique to use. Objective: To summarize trials comparing alternative SBTs. Data Sources: Several databases (MEDLINE [from inception to February 2023], the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [in February 2023], and Embase [from inception to February 2023] and 5 conference proceedings (from January 1990 to April 2023) were searched in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Study Selection: Randomized trials directly comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults or children and reporting at least 1 clinical outcome were selected. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently screened citations, abstracted data, and assessed quality for the systematic review and meta-analysis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA guidelines). Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included SBT success, extubation success, and reintubation. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis identified 40 trials that included 6716 patients. Low-quality evidence (14 trials [n = 4459]) suggested that patients were not more likely to pass a pressure support (PS) compared with a T-piece SBT (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.11; P = .31; I2 = 73%), unless 1 outlier trial accounting for all heterogeneity was excluded (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P < .001; I2 = 0% [13 trials; n = 3939]; moderate-quality evidence), but were significantly more likely to be successfully extubated (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001; I2 = 0%; 16 trials [n = 4462]; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data (5 trials [n = 502]) revealed that patients who underwent automatic tube compensation/continuous positive airway pressure compared with PS SBTs had a significantly higher successful extubation rate (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04; I2 = 0% [low-quality evidence]). Compared with T-piece SBTs, high-flow oxygen SBTs (3 trials [n = 386]) had significantly higher successful extubation (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; P = .04; I2 = 0%) and lower reintubation (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P = <.001; I2 = 0% [both low-quality evidence]) rates. Credible subgroup effects were not found. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the findings suggest that patients undergoing PS compared with T-piece SBTs were more likely to be extubated successfully and more likely to pass an SBT, after exclusion of an outlier trial. Pressure support SBTs were not associated with increased risk of reintubation. Future trials should compare SBT techniques that maximize differences in inspiratory support.

Systemic corticosteroids in fibrotic lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the available evidence for corticosteroids in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) to inform the randomised embedded multifactorial adaptive platform ILD. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from inception to April 17 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that compared corticosteroids with standard care, placebo or no treatment in adult patients with fILD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We report on the change in forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and standardised MDs for continuous outcomes, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 13 229 unique citations identified, we included 10 observational studies comprising 1639 patients. Corticosteroids had an uncertain effect on mortality compared with no treatment (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.25); very low certainty evidence). The effect of corticosteroids on the rate of decline in FVC (% predicted) was uncertain when compared with no treatment (MD 4.29% (95% CI -8.26% to 16.83%); very low certainty evidence). However, corticosteroids might reduce the rate of decline in FVC in patients with non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) fILD (MD 10.89% (95% CI 5.25% to 16.53%); low certainty evidence), while an uncertain effect was observed in patients with IPF (MD -3.80% (95% CI -8.94% to 1.34%); very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in fILD is limited and of low certainty. Randomised trials are needed to address this significant research gap.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies. CONCLUSION: Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Anti-epithelial-derived cytokines for severe asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Therapies directed against epithelial-derived cytokines, often referred to as alarmins, have been studied in large randomized trials, and reports suggest possible benefit for non-type 2 as well as type 2 severe asthma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process, and Web of Science databases from inception to March 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing antialarmin therapy in severe asthma. Results use relative risk (RR) values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we report mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We define high eosinophils as ≥300 cells/µL and low eosinophils as <300 cells/µL. We used Cochrane-endorsed RoB 2.0 software to assess the risk of bias of trials, and we used the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (aka GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials including 2391 patients. Antialarmins probably reduce annualized exacerbation rates in patients with high eosinophils (RR 0.33 [95% CI 0.28 to 0.38]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins may reduce this rate in patients with low eosinophils (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.90]; low certainty). Antialarmins improve FEV1 in patients with high eosinophils (MD 218.5 mL [95% CI 160.2 to 276.7]; high certainty). Antialarmin therapy probably does not improve FEV1 in patients with low eosinophils (MD 68.8 mL [95% CI 22.4 to 115.2]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins reduce blood eosinophils, total IgE, and fractional excretion of nitric oxide across studied subjects. CONCLUSION: Antialarmins are effective at improving lung function and probably reduce exacerbations in patients with severe asthma and blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL. The effect on patients with lower eosinophils is less certain.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. RESULTS: We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

First report on genome wide association study in western Indian population reveals host genetic factors for COVID-19 severity and outcome.

Different human races across the globe responded in a different way to the SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to different disease severity. Therefore, it is anticipated that host genetic factors have a straight association with the COVID-19. We identified a total 6, 7, and 6 genomic loci for deceased-recovered, asymptomatic-recovered, and deceased-asymptomatic group comparison, respectively. Unfavourable alleles of the markers nearby the genes which are associated with lung and heart diseases such as Tumor necrosis factor superfamily (TNFSF4&18), showed noteworthy association with the disease severity and outcome for the COVID-19 patients in the western Indian population. The markers found with significant association with disease prognosis or recovery are of value in determining the individual's response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and can be used for the risk prediction in COVID-19. Besides, GWAS study in other populations from India may help to strengthen the outcome of this study.

Elucidating the relationship between arrhythmia and ischemic heterogeneity: an in silico study.

Dialysis causes blood flow defects in the heart that may augment electrophysiological heterogeneity in the form of increased number of ischemic zones in the human left ventricle. We computationally tested whether a larger number of ischemic zones aggravate arrhythmia using a 2D electrophysiological model of the human ventricle.A human ventricle cardiomyocyte model capable of simulating ischemic action potentials was adapted in this study. The cell model was incorporated into a spatial 2D model consisting of known number of ischemic zones. Inter-cellular gap junction coupling within ischemic zones was reduced to simulate slow conduction. Arrhythmia severity was assessed by inducing a re-entry, and quantifying the ensuing breakup and tissue pacing rates.Ischemia elevated the isolated cardiomyocyte's resting potential and reduced its action potential duration. In the absence of ischemic zones, the propensity in the 2D model to induce multiple re-entrant waves was low. The inclusion of ischemic zones provided the substrate for initiation of re-entrant waves leading to fibrillation. Dominant frequency, which measured the highest rate of pacing in the tissue, increased drastically with the inclusion of multiple ischemic zones. Re-entrant wave tip maximum numbers increased from 1 tip (no ischemic zone) to 34 tips when a large number (20) of ischemic zones were included. Computational limiting factors of our platform were identified using software profiling.Clinical significance. Dialysis may promote deleterious arrhythmias by increasing tissue level action potential dispersion.